If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Welcome to the new PC Perspective forums! Have a look around and tell us what you think in our feedback forum. If you notice any bugs or style issues, please report them in this thread.

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

Originally Posted by BIGDADDY51

No problem, just fly a nazi flag in front of your house, so we will know where you live, After all, it's covered under the first ammendment, freedom of expression.Or maybe even an all white flag, with a red ball in the middle.After all, those symbols should mean nothing also.Nobody EVER forced us to say it in school, if you didn't want to, you were to remain silent ,while others did. In this politically correct time of BS, I hope it passes, and the words UNDER GOD stay in it. If you don't believe, don't participate, just don't try to stop anyone who cares to. I am one AMERICAN, who is sick and tired of FOREIGNERS, who think they can come here, and try to change anything they so desire.BD51

Wow, that is an impressive post. You managed to work in the Nazi reference, the "politically correct" label, intolerant Christianity, and xenophobia. That is impressive, I must say; it gave me a good chuckle. So, let's address things one by one here.

Flying the Nazi flag would be an issue of freedom of speech, yes. If it was done on a person's private property (say that three times quickly), then I would not object all that much. I would think less of them for it and question their beliefs, but I would defend their right to fly it.

The "white flag with a red ball in the middle" is the current Japanese flag.

The World War II flag looked like this:

Once again, it would be an issue of free speech. I routinely see people driving around in trucks (and cars on occasion) blazoned with the Confederate Flag. I object to their reasons for doing so, but I defend their right to do it.

You're fooling yourself if you think that there is no coercion to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The very action of forcing everyone to stand is coercive. Though you might pass it off as "you can remain silent", the fact remains that there is unspoken coercion. The act is a normaliser used by the vocal majority to quell dissent. It's little different from prayers in schools or in the government. The best option is not to do so at all. Neither prayers nor the pledge further the educational program. If you studied the pledge in an English class, that would be another situation.

Let people recite the pledge on their own time in their own places. Or are people too meek to participate privately?

As for you being an "AMERICAN", I have news for you: unless you are 100% Amerind, you are bred from "FOREIGNER" stock. This country was built by immigrants and is a "melting pot" of FOREIGNER cultures.

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

While liberal Republicans don't seem to exist, "conservative" Democrats do. Party lines do not mesh with idealogies as well as so many people would have you believe.

Originally Posted by Big B-man

It's not, but it's supposed to prove a point based on the logic that you seem to have regarding the words "under God" in the Pledge.

Shall we now pick apart the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to remove all instances of God?

God never appears in the Constitution, actually. And in the Declaration of Independence there is only one reference to "Nature's God". Nice try, though.

You also know you can say things without meaning it, right?

...What? Are you trying to posit the theory that it's somehow acceptable to force others to do things as long as they make a showing of doing it even though they don't believe it?

The flag is symbolic of the country, and if you believe that it's being stated that we should follow a flag, can I have some of what you're smoking?

Why are you pledging your allegiance to a symbol? Why not pledge your allegiance to the country or, better yet, the Constitution? Why must you pledge your allegiance in the first place? Does that really signify anything? Do not my actions speak more loudly than my words? Should not voting be more representative of my civic piety than some phrase pushed upon me by others?

Last edited by Orangutan; 03-16-2005 at 01:13 PM.

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

Originally Posted by Orangutan

Wow, that is an impressive post. You managed to work in the Nazi reference, the "politically correct" label, intolerant Christianity, and xenophobia. That is impressive, I must say; it gave me a good chuckle. So, let's address things one by one here.

Flying the Nazi flag would be an issue of freedom of speech, yes. If it was done on a person's private property (say that three times quickly), then I would not object all that much. I would think less of them for it and question their beliefs, but I would defend their right to fly it.

The "white flag with a red ball in the middle" is the current Japanese flag.

The World War II flag looked like this:

Once again, it would be an issue of free speech. I routinely see people driving around in trucks (and cars on occasion) blazoned with the Confederate Flag. I object to their reasons for doing so, but I defend their right to do it.

You're fooling yourself if you think that there is no coercion to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The very action of forcing everyone to stand is coercive. Though you might pass it off as "you can remain silent", the fact remains that there is unspoken coercion. The act is a normaliser used by the vocal majority to quell dissent. It's little different from prayers in schools or in the government. The best option is not to do so at all. Neither prayers nor the pledge further the educational program. If you studied the pledge in an English class, that would be another situation.

Let people recite the pledge on their own time in their own places. Or are people too meek to participate privately?

As for you being an "AMERICAN", I have news for you: unless you are 100% Amerind, you are bred from "FOREIGNER" stock. This country was built by immigrants and is a "melting pot" of FOREIGNER cultures.

Your last statement is quite true, but they had NO problem, with learning the pledge ,our US history ,and how to speak english. As a matter of fact, they were proud to become US citizens. I may not be 100% ,but I have about 15% native blood in my viens. The point I'm trying to make is when a foreign person comes here, what gives them the right to try and change the way we are. Try that in any foreign country and most likely, you'd be run out of the country on a rail. We definitely don't live in the PERFECT society, that some would try to achieve.As far as I'm concerned ,we are going backward , with the middle class being eliminated altogether. It's the rich, against the poor, with corporate slavery being the key. Sure you can work for me, as long as you give110% and expect nothing in return, seems to be the Corporate mindset. Trying to keep school 100% generic, is an exercise in futility. We shouldn't worry about wether we offend (insert religious belief here) people just because they don't believe what's happening, in PUBLIC schools. Public schools should be able to teach whatever they want to, If you don't want your kid exposed to it ,nobody is stopping you from enrolling your kid in your school of choice. And if UNDER GOD offends go back home ,or respect others rights to recite it. It didn't kill my generation to say it, maybe by reciting it , it just might make a few young kids, think about what a great country they live in. That's the country that flys the red white and blue. BD51

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

While liberal Republicans don't seem to exist, "conservative" Democrats do. Party lines do not mesh with idealogies as well as so many people would have you believe.

Come to NY, you'll find them here (Rep Libs), probably could in other states that are primarily liberal.

God never appears in the Constitution, actually. And in the Declaration of Independence there is only one reference to "Nature's God". Nice try, though.

Yes, and "In God we trust" on currency, as well as placing your hand on a BIBLE in court swearing to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth "so help me God", as well as "so help me God" being used to swear someone into government office, judicial office or the armed services. here are the oaths:

..What? Are you trying to posit the theory that it's somehow acceptable to force others to do things as long as they make a showing of doing it even though they don't believe it?

I already stated that I pay taxes that in turn pay for abortion - something I'm forced to do, because if it were upto to me I wouldn't (and there are many that feel the same as I do), also I pay for entitlement programs I don't want too, yet I'm forced too, and people who want creationism taught to their children in public schools to which they pay taxes are forced to have their children taught evolution exclusively. So what your saying is that it's only acceptable to force those into things they wish not to do - just so long as it's not anything you would not like to do.

Why are you pledging your allegiance to a symbol? Why not pledge your allegiance to the country or, better yet, the Constitution? Why must you pledge your allegiance in the first place? Does that really signify anything? Do not my actions speak more loudly than my words? Should not voting be more representative of my civic piety than some phrase pushed upon me by others?

Your actions??? IMO, you would be the last person to defend your country if it was needed, your demeanor suggests a reliance on others to fight and keep your freedoms for you, ie I don't believe you have the heart too.

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

Originally Posted by Orangutan

There ya go. Now, was that so difficult?

Anyway, only your first example is close to applicable. Even then it's not accurate. After all, how many people pay taxes? Your money goes to "Support the Troops" and pay for war. My money goes to education, the arts, women's health, and the general good of society; it's really that simple.

You are so far gone into political correctness and new age thinking, I sincerely doubt there is hope for you. And even then, you display YOUR hypocrisy.

Women's health? What about men's heath? General good of society? Yet you rail against actions designed to preserve it. Arts? Come on, less than 1% of the population even visits art galleries, yet the public funds it. Ridiculous.

As far as creationism, the scientific community puts no stock in it, hence it should not be taught. If there were evidence for it and scientists considered it even close to valid, it would be another story.

Yes, let's just teach popular theory, even though we have no proof for it either.

What do you mean "teachers pushing political points"? I have never encountered such a thing in the primary level (though I have heard of one in town who maintains that evolution and global warming are lies) and scarcely have I ever heard of it. At that level, no one should be "pushing" political agenda. At the collegiate level, I think that in many instances a professor's political views should stay out of the situation. However, there are times and even entire fields where those views are absolutely valid. By that point, however, people are old enough to know how to evaluate all sides and reach their own conclusions. Most primary schoolers are not equipped for such things, as they are still forming those processes.

Agreed.

I "bitch" because the pledge not only violates the letter of the law with its "Under God" part, but also the spirit of "liberty" upon which our country was founded. You cannot compel respect, but you can compel nationalism. Why must there be a public display of your "patriotism" anyway? Why must people be forced to observe a pledge? What if they disagree with the pledge (for various reasons)? There are no stipulations of "patriotism" in the citizenship requirements, after all. Dissent and free speech are sort of guaranteed by that little thing we call the "First Amendment" in the "Bill of Rights". Why not pledge your allegiance to the Constitution? Why include "Under God"? You teach people that the country is more important than the ideals upon which it was founded with this pledge and this compulsory activity.

Actually, I agree with you on the requirement to pledge allegiance. No one should be forced to pledge, acknowledge or even stand. But I DO support that it should be allowed, and those who wish to participate, allowed to do so.

After all, a nation needs to have a singular identity. Multiculturalism is simply a failure. No "multicultural" society works. The US works because it allows individuality, but within a strong and proud national identity. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree, or even participate, but that equally doesn't mean that those offended by the national identity get to play the "constitution" card and ruin it for the majoral rest of the population.

I suspect your "issue" with this issue has more to do with "Under God" (since you brought it up), than having to pledge. I suspect this is just a very veiled attempt on your part to once again slam Christianity; your hatred of which is now becoming quite legendary, I might add.

How is saying "Under God" anymore offensive now, than it was 100 years ago? Ppl back then didn't bitch like you and your ilk do now because it offends your "constitutional" sensibilities. But the general populace identifies with the POA as is, why change it just because a minor few are offended? THAT is the problem with minority rights.............they begin to impose THEIR will on the majority. No one tells them they have to believe in God...........surely saying it doesn't change that.............and certainly, I agree that being forced to say the POA is wrong, but even if simply allowing those who WISH to say it, how does "Under God" hurt anyone??? Fact is, it doesn't.

One last comment.............how is requiring the removal of all instances of "God" any better than allowing them to stay? I mean, requiring a "neutered" constitution with no religious references at ALL still in fact has a "religious" reference, since now it favors the atheists. So, now the gov't is endorsing atheism. But of course, that is ok.

I suspect you should stay in school for a VERY long time. I suspect the real world will not be to your liking at all.

Thank you for that wonderfully insightful and informative post.[/QUOTE]

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

Originally Posted by Orangutan

[*]Flying the Nazi flag would be an issue of freedom of speech, yes. If it was done on a person's private property (say that three times quickly), then I would not object all that much. I would think less of them for it and question their beliefs, but I would defend their right to fly it.

And taking that flag down and burning it would equally be ok, too, I am sure!

[*]The "white flag with a red ball in the middle" is the current Japanese flag.

The World War II flag looked like this:

More flippant nonsense, failing to address the post, attacking the poster, albeit very subtly...........

[*]You're fooling yourself if you think that there is no coercion to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The very action of forcing everyone to stand is coercive. Though you might pass it off as "you can remain silent", the fact remains that there is unspoken coercion. The act is a normaliser used by the vocal majority to quell dissent. It's little different from prayers in schools or in the government. The best option is not to do so at all. Neither prayers nor the pledge further the educational program. If you studied the pledge in an English class, that would be another situation.

The best option afayac!

[*]As for you being an "AMERICAN", I have news for you: unless you are 100% Amerind, you are bred from "FOREIGNER" stock. This country was built by immigrants and is a "melting pot" of FOREIGNER cultures.

Actually, I thought Indians crossed the Bering Strait, which would make them foreigners to!

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

And taking that flag down and burning it would equally be ok, too, I am sure!

Well, yeah, as long as it was the owner doing it.

More flippant nonsense, failing to address the post, attacking the poster, albeit very subtly...........

How is that?

The best option afayac!

What is?

Actually, I thought Indians crossed the Bering Strait, which would make them foreigners to!

Technically, yes, just as everyone outside of Africa is.

You are so far gone into political correctness and new age thinking, I sincerely doubt there is hope for you. And even then, you display YOUR hypocrisy.

I hate to repeat myself, but how is that?

Women's health? What about men's heath? General good of society? Yet you rail against actions designed to preserve it. Arts? Come on, less than 1% of the population even visits art galleries, yet the public funds it. Ridiculous.

Art galleries != arts. Yes, art is part of the arts, but not the only part. And how do I "rail against actions to preserve the good of society"? Last I checked, I'm the one constantly attacking views that seek to enlarge the government, oppress minorities, and generally screw over anyone who isn't a member of the current ruling class.

Yes, let's just teach popular theory, even though we have no proof for it either.

Ah, there you go again. Science doesn't prove anything. I would think you would pick up on that after so many conservations where other people have said the same thing. You don't teach what is popular, you teach what is accepted by that field. For instance, you don't teach that the world was created 6,000 years ago in a geology class. You also don't teach the Bible as the literal word of God in English class. Why? Because the majority of experts in those fields don't believe so.

Agreed.

Hell hasn't even frozen over.

Actually, I agree with you on the requirement to pledge allegiance. No one should be forced to pledge, acknowledge or even stand. But I DO support that it should be allowed, and those who wish to participate, allowed to do so.

Oh I absolutely think it should be allowed of people, just as they should be allowed to pray. However, time should not be set aside specifically for either action.

After all, a nation needs to have a singular identity. Multiculturalism is simply a failure. No "multicultural" society works. The US works because it allows individuality, but within a strong and proud national identity. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree, or even participate, but that equally doesn't mean that those offended by the national identity get to play the "constitution" card and ruin it for the majoral rest of the population.

Define for me what a culture is. Then define for me "American Culture".

I suspect your "issue" with this issue has more to do with "Under God" (since you brought it up), than having to pledge. I suspect this is just a very veiled attempt on your part to once again slam Christianity; your hatred of which is now becoming quite legendary, I might add.

The "Under God" is merely one problem with the Pledge, as I keep saying. I also object to its compulsion and the pledging to a flag. Why do you always retreat to the claim of me "hating Christianity"? I have repeatedly stated that I in no way hate Christianity, believing that there are many good parts to it. Rather, I object to intolerant and perverted Christianity, which is hardly Christianity at all.

How is saying "Under God" anymore offensive now, than it was 100 years ago? Ppl back then didn't bitch like you and your ilk do now because it offends your "constitutional" sensibilities. But the general populace identifies with the POA as is, why change it just because a minor few are offended? THAT is the problem with minority rights.............they begin to impose THEIR will on the majority. No one tells them they have to believe in God...........surely saying it doesn't change that.............and certainly, I agree that being forced to say the POA is wrong, but even if simply allowing those who WISH to say it, how does "Under God" hurt anyone??? Fact is, it doesn't.

Actually, people did "bitch". You're from Canada, so you arguing this is rather pointless. You continually maintain that somehow the minority "imposes their will" on the majority, when it is the other way around. You have absolutely no evidence to support your claim. Indeed, the Constitution was written to ensure that those not in power are not trampled by people like you. This nation is not "Under God", no matter how the zealots try to spin it. It's fallacious to say so, and even worse to force people to say so.

One last comment.............how is requiring the removal of all instances of "God" any better than allowing them to stay? I mean, requiring a "neutered" constitution with no religious references at ALL still in fact has a "religious" reference, since now it favors the atheists. So, now the gov't is endorsing atheism. But of course, that is ok.

As I said earlier, the Constitution makes no reference to "God". Thus, your argument is meatless. The government does not endorse something by the exclusion of it. If you make no references to any religion, you are favoring none.

I suspect you should stay in school for a VERY long time. I suspect the real world will not be to your liking at all.

And another usual fallback point. Right, because I somehow exist in a bubble, even though my studies require me to be involved deeply in the affairs of humanity. Fantastic logic.

Originally Posted by Nobody1

Come to NY, you'll find them here (Rep Libs), probably could in other states that are primarily liberal.

Such a thing is quite strange. I would never have guessed that they exist in this day and age. I'll take your word for it.

Yes, and "In God we trust" on currency, as well as placing your hand on a BIBLE in court swearing to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth "so help me God", as well as "so help me God" being used to swear someone into government office, judicial office or the armed services. here are the oaths:

And those shouldn't exist either. You'll note that the "In God We Trust" is a relatively recent addition. All are violations of the letter of the law. Your argument would seem to be circular. Your link even demonstrates why they should be prohibited.

I already stated that I pay taxes that in turn pay for abortion - something I'm forced to do, because if it were upto to me I wouldn't (and there are many that feel the same as I do), also I pay for entitlement programs I don't want too, yet I'm forced too, and people who want creationism taught to their children in public schools to which they pay taxes are forced to have their children taught evolution exclusively. So what your saying is that it's only acceptable to force those into things they wish not to do - just so long as it's not anything you would not like to do.

Using that logic, you also fund terrorism, rape, child pornography, and sweatshops. Anyway, it's tough shit that people want creationism to be taught in schools. There's no sound scientific basis for it, which is why it's not presented. I could care less what the zealots want to be imposed in schools. As I said some time ago, the pledge violates the spirit and letter of the law. I don't agree with most compulsory things when it comes to the government. As long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, you should be pretty much free to do as you so choose. (I'm still making up my mind on whether classroom attendance should be mandatory.) I think every citizen should have to pay taxes and abstain from violating the rights and property of others, but beyond that, I really don't think much else should be forced. I don't want to pay taxes, that's for certain, but I think it's necessary to maintain the country. What the government does with that money later is another matter.

Your actions??? IMO, you would be the last person to defend your country if it was needed, your demeanor suggests a reliance on others to fight and keep your freedoms for you, ie I don't believe you have the heart too.

I was wondering when that argument would show up. I'm a "liberal", therefore not only do I hate my country but I am also a coward. Outstanding. I'd love to see you provide some backing for that. Of course you can't because it's as hollow the Tin Man.

Originally Posted by BIGDADDY51

Your last statement is quite true ... That's the country that flys the red white and blue. BD51

O...k... Let's see if I can follow you here. You're a conservative who hates big business because they force people to do things, but thinks that Christian ideals should be imposed on people, that forced recitation of a pledge will somehow instill a sense of respect and pride rather than ignorant nationalism in people, and that while you were not required to pass any sorts of competancy examinations for citizenship people from other countries who want to come here should be forced to abandon what they know and do to appease your sense of "AMERICANism". Does that all sound about right, or am I reading you incorrectly?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

Originally Posted by Orangutan

Technically, yes, just as everyone outside of Africa is.

Which then makes your statement "unless you are 100% Amerind, you are bred from "FOREIGNER" stock" false!

Art galleries != arts. Yes, art is part of the arts, but not the only part. And how do I "rail against actions to preserve the good of society"? Last I checked, I'm the one constantly attacking views that seek to enlarge the government, oppress minorities, and generally screw over anyone who isn't a member of the current ruling class.

Art galleries are patronized by essentially the same ppl, yet are publicly funded. Thus, ppl are forced to "do something" (pay for art galleries) against their will. You say you are for "women's health", which implies that somehow that has a special priority over, or is somehow unique, to other ppls health................hypocrisy, when compared to what you espouse.

Now, I do agree with you (once again) that the size of gov't is too large, although, I don't think its power is necessarily too large. Oppress minorites? From my POV, it is the majority who is being "oppressed as of late".

So yes, you may rail to preserve the "good of society", but you do so as selectively as anyone else.

Ah, there you go again. Science doesn't prove anything. I would think you would pick up on that after so many conservations where other people have said the same thing. You don't teach what is popular, you teach what is accepted by that field. For instance, you don't teach that the world was created 6,000 years ago in a geology class. You also don't teach the Bible as the literal word of God in English class. Why? Because the majority of experts in those fields don't believe so.

Well, in Orangian fashion, I DIDN'T say science has to prove. I simply said there is no proof. Is there? No, of course there isn't.

But let me rephrase...............evolution is a debateable theory based on highly debateable evidence, that is defended with a near religious zealotry..............hardly any more suitable than creationism, from even your perspective, imho.

Hell hasn't even frozen over.

Amazing, idn't it? Interestingly, though, the end of hell is NOT a freezing over, but ironically, thermal destruction!

Oh I absolutely think it should be allowed of people, just as they should be allowed to pray. However, time should not be set aside specifically for either action.

Agree. Disagree.

Define for me what a culture is. Then define for me "American Culture".

I didn't say culture. America has NO culture. But it does have a strong national identity, and identity of purpose. Steeped with some traditions that for the most part give it that unique identity, traditions which harm no one, are in the favour of the majority, and yet it is the minority that seeks to impose it's will, all for the sake of offended sensibilities.

Now we have agreed that forced recital of the pledge is wrong, but that is as far as it goes, imho.

The "Under God" is merely one problem with the Pledge, as I keep saying. I also object to its compulsion and the pledging to a flag. Why do you always retreat to the claim of me "hating Christianity"? I have repeatedly stated that I in no way hate Christianity, believing that there are many good parts to it. Rather, I object to intolerant and perverted Christianity, which is hardly Christianity at all.

You claim you don't hate Christianity, but your posts paint a very different story.

Actually, people did "bitch". You're from Canada, so you arguing this is rather pointless.

One way to avoid the topic. Innovative, I'll grant you that.

You continually maintain that somehow the minority "imposes their will" on the majority, when it is the other way around.

Your opinion. The rise of "minority" rights lays evidence otherwise.

As I said earlier, the Constitution makes no reference to "God". Thus, your argument is meatless. The government does not endorse something by the exclusion of it. If you make no references to any religion, you are favoring none.

You are adding words. I never said the constitution. I said removing references to God. You implied I meant constitution, when I certainly did not.

And, you CAN endorse something be exclusion. It may be passive, but it is still endorsing. Failing to endorse religion, or purposely trying not to, in fact, endorses atheism by default, despite a country where atheists are a minority..................oh, LOL, now I see.............minority rights.................

And another usual fallback point. Right, because I somehow exist in a bubble, even though my studies require me to be involved deeply in the affairs of humanity. Fantastic logic.

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

Originally Posted by Orangutan

Well, yeah, as long as it was the owner doing it.

How is that?

What is?

Technically, yes, just as everyone outside of Africa is.

I hate to repeat myself, but how is that?

Art galleries != arts. Yes, art is part of the arts, but not the only part. And how do I "rail against actions to preserve the good of society"? Last I checked, I'm the one constantly attacking views that seek to enlarge the government, oppress minorities, and generally screw over anyone who isn't a member of the current ruling class.

Ah, there you go again. Science doesn't prove anything. I would think you would pick up on that after so many conservations where other people have said the same thing. You don't teach what is popular, you teach what is accepted by that field. For instance, you don't teach that the world was created 6,000 years ago in a geology class. You also don't teach the Bible as the literal word of God in English class. Why? Because the majority of experts in those fields don't believe so.

Hell hasn't even frozen over.

Oh I absolutely think it should be allowed of people, just as they should be allowed to pray. However, time should not be set aside specifically for either action.

Define for me what a culture is. Then define for me "American Culture".

The "Under God" is merely one problem with the Pledge, as I keep saying. I also object to its compulsion and the pledging to a flag. Why do you always retreat to the claim of me "hating Christianity"? I have repeatedly stated that I in no way hate Christianity, believing that there are many good parts to it. Rather, I object to intolerant and perverted Christianity, which is hardly Christianity at all.

Actually, people did "bitch". You're from Canada, so you arguing this is rather pointless. You continually maintain that somehow the minority "imposes their will" on the majority, when it is the other way around. You have absolutely no evidence to support your claim. Indeed, the Constitution was written to ensure that those not in power are not trampled by people like you. This nation is not "Under God", no matter how the zealots try to spin it. It's fallacious to say so, and even worse to force people to say so.

As I said earlier, the Constitution makes no reference to "God". Thus, your argument is meatless. The government does not endorse something by the exclusion of it. If you make no references to any religion, you are favoring none.

And another usual fallback point. Right, because I somehow exist in a bubble, even though my studies require me to be involved deeply in the affairs of humanity. Fantastic logic.

Such a thing is quite strange. I would never have guessed that they exist in this day and age. I'll take your word for it.

And those shouldn't exist either. You'll note that the "In God We Trust" is a relatively recent addition. All are violations of the letter of the law. Your argument would seem to be circular. Your link even demonstrates why they should be prohibited.

Using that logic, you also fund terrorism, rape, child pornography, and sweatshops. Anyway, it's tough shit that people want creationism to be taught in schools. There's no sound scientific basis for it, which is why it's not presented. I could care less what the zealots want to be imposed in schools. As I said some time ago, the pledge violates the spirit and letter of the law. I don't agree with most compulsory things when it comes to the government. As long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, you should be pretty much free to do as you so choose. (I'm still making up my mind on whether classroom attendance should be mandatory.) I think every citizen should have to pay taxes and abstain from violating the rights and property of others, but beyond that, I really don't think much else should be forced. I don't want to pay taxes, that's for certain, but I think it's necessary to maintain the country. What the government does with that money later is another matter.

I was wondering when that argument would show up. I'm a "liberal", therefore not only do I hate my country but I am also a coward. Outstanding. I'd love to see you provide some backing for that. Of course you can't because it's as hollow the Tin Man.

O...k... Let's see if I can follow you here. You're a conservative who hates big business because they force people to do things, but thinks that Christian ideals should be imposed on people, that forced recitation of a pledge will somehow instill a sense of respect and pride rather than ignorant nationalism in people, and that while you were not required to pass any sorts of competancy examinations for citizenship people from other countries who want to come here should be forced to abandon what they know and do to appease your sense of "AMERICANism". Does that all sound about right, or am I reading you incorrectly?

I am not saying they have to ABANDON thier culture, just not expect US to adopt thiers, simply because they want us to. What would happen ,if say ,you moved to (pick a foreign country) and said, that because your kids are American, you don't want them to have to participate in the holy Kresh hour or whatever? I'm thinking you would be shown the door. Corporate America, has enslaved the poor ,with thier 95% efficiency quotas, out of minimum wage workers,while by, juggling the laws ,get away without paying any benefits while the CEO takes home a 7 figure yearly salary.Any big name store come to mind? There are lots of foreign folks who do LOVE America, and prove it. They are the ones who proudly display an American flag, and are not trying to cause troubles from within.They are willing to share thier culture with us, not impose it on us. GOD BLESS AMERICA, AGAIN If I offended anybody, TOUGH, get over it. BD51

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

i am so sick of this egotistical BS that "americans" try to pass off as "true patriotism"

true patriotism is not something that is forced upon you, it is something that you have to develop for yourself. last time i heard you couldnt FORCE someone to be happy.. patriotism/loyalty is an emotion that must be inspired, and never forced.

secondly, these "dirty ferners" (hick accent very heavy) are probably the ones who appreciate "America" and what it stands for the most. If you grew up in utter poverty, oppressed by a tyranical regime you'd be alot happier about living in America than ANYONE on this forum who currently lives here (those who have been previously oppressed aside )

I already said why i think the pledge is a load of crap, and i must say that out of 90% of the rest of the people responding in this thread, this is probably most relevant to me I for one see the pledge being mandatory as a very "Big Brother/ McCarthyist" kind of "oh look, im a good american! i say the pledge! dont kill me and lock me up for being a dirty communist

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

Originally Posted by Activate: AMD

I already said why i think the pledge is a load of crap, and i must say that out of 90% of the rest of the people responding in this thread, this is probably most relevant to me I for one see the pledge being mandatory as a very "Big Brother/ McCarthyist" kind of "oh look, im a good american! i say the pledge! dont kill me and lock me up for being a dirty communist

We can all imagine horror Orwellian scenarios. That doesn't make them probable or realistic.

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

Quote "Truth, justice, and the AMERICAN WAY." Sound familar? It should. They used it in 1939, to promote SUPERMAN. The mid 40swere a dark time for the USA, we had just emerged from WW2, and the Gov was suspicious of anybody, especially actors and actresses. The Great Bear was a super power to be reconned with, and in the early 50s DUCK and COVER was being taught in our schools. The simple saying of the Pledge in our public schools, gave children a sense of being safe, and that our government would protect us. I know it stirred some strong emotions in me, and a good many others, in the school.Nobody forced any body to do anything. It was an accepted practice of our daily school routine. How times have changed. People that are native to the USA, are looking like the minority class now.Maybe we should abolish schools altogether, and keep our kids home, so they won't ever experience having to say the pledge. After all, it may harm them for life.BD51

Re: Bill Requiring Pledge Of Allegiance In School Passes

Originally Posted by BIGDADDY51

Quote "Truth, justice, and the AMERICAN WAY." Sound familar? It should. They used it in 1939, to promote SUPERMAN. The mid 40swere a dark time for the USA, we had just emerged from WW2, and the Gov was suspicious of anybody, especially actors and actresses. The Great Bear was a super power to be reconned with, and in the early 50s DUCK and COVER was being taught in our schools. The simple saying of the Pledge in our public schools, gave children a sense of being safe, and that our government would protect us. I know it stirred some strong emotions in me, and a good many others, in the school.Nobody forced any body to do anything. It was an accepted practice of our daily school routine. How times have changed. People that are native to the USA, are looking like the minority class now.Maybe we should abolish schools altogether, and keep our kids home, so they won't ever experience having to say the pledge. After all, it may harm them for life.BD51